Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the Intel Arc B370 is a combination that shows a massive divide between processor capability and graphics output in Pc Building Simulator. The CPU, a 14-core, 20-thread Raptor Lake refresh part, is a top-tier performer, while the GPU is an integrated-class solution that severely bottlenecks system performance. Benchmark data confirms this pairing ranks 2761st out of 3002 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is the dominant component in this pairing from a processing standpoint. It features 14 cores and 20 threads, a configuration designed to handle heavy multitasking and multi-threaded workloads. Its base clock runs at 3.50 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.30 GHz, giving it substantial single-thread capability that many simulation games rely on for core game logic. The processor's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample fast memory for game data, though the game's performance here suggests the GPU never allows the CPU to stretch its legs.

The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive. In Cinebench R23, it scores 32,544 multi-core and 4,594 single-core. PassMark multithread results show 38,697, with floating point math hitting 93,048. These numbers place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly nine out of ten processors on the market. Its average benchmark score of 49,394 puts it right alongside the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which scores 49,228 and is only 0.3% behind, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G at 49,196, which is 0.4% behind. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 trails by 0.8% with 48,995, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads by 0.8% with 49,796.

For Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is to manage the simulation logic, part interactions, and system state calculations. With 20 threads available, the 14600KF has more than enough parallelism for this genre. However, the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, the combination only reaches 113 FPS average, and at 4K Ultra it drops to 18 FPS. These numbers are not indicative of CPU limitations; they reflect the GPU's inability to render frames quickly enough. The CPU is effectively idle-waiting for the graphics solution to catch up. This is a classic case where the processor's 90th-percentile rank means nothing for actual gameplay because the system is entirely GPU-bound.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor in this configuration. It is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a Panther Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. The GPU runs with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, but its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and instead relies on system memory. This is a critical weakness for gaming performance, as shared memory bandwidth is system-dependent and typically far slower than dedicated GDDR memory.

The Arc B370's compute specifications reveal its low-end nature. It has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and only 20 render output units. Its pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is just 6.144 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards. This GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs — meaning it performs worse than 95% of graphics cards.

The nearest rivals for the Arc B370 are all legacy or low-end parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1,186, just 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192, 0.7% higher. Only the AMD FirePro M2000 scores lower, at 1,168, which is 1.4% behind. This places the Arc B370 in the same performance tier as GPUs from over a decade ago. For a game like Pc Building Simulator, which has relatively light graphical demands, the GPU still struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions and settings.

The GPU's 25 W TDP and IGP slot width reinforce that this is an integrated-level solution. It draws power through the motherboard rather than a dedicated power connector, and its display outputs are portable-device-dependent. This is not a gaming GPU; it is designed for basic display output and light acceleration. The benchmark results in Pc Building Simulator reflect this, with 4K Ultra averaging just 18 FPS and even 1080p Ultra only reaching 54 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking compared to all processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49,394.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rival in GPU benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1,184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while its closest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1,186, making the ATI part only 0.2% faster.

Q: What is the best average FPS achieved by this combination in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 113, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: What is the worst average FPS recorded?

A: The lowest average FPS is 18, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the GPU have dedicated VRAM?

A: No, the Intel Arc B370 uses System Shared memory, with memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent.

Q: How many combos does this pairing rank above in Pc Building Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 2761st out of 3002 tested combinations, meaning it outperforms 241 other combos but falls behind the vast majority.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2761st out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This rank places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations tested. The data shows that the CPU's high percentile rank (90th) does not translate to gaming performance when paired with a GPU in the 5th percentile. The combo rank is almost entirely determined by the GPU's capability, as the CPU has more than enough processing headroom for this simulation title.

The ranking gap is stark. The CPU alone would be competitive in any CPU-focused benchmark, but the GPU drags the entire system down. In practical terms, this means the combination performs like a low-end office system rather than a gaming rig. The 2761st rank reflects a system that can handle basic productivity tasks but struggles with modern gaming at acceptable frame rates. The 241 combos it beats are likely those with even older or weaker integrated graphics solutions. This is a pairing that makes little sense for gaming, as the CPU's potential is entirely wasted by the GPU's constraints.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU-bound nature of this system. At 1080p Low, the combination achieves 113 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 71 FPS, a 37% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 37 FPS, which represents a 67% drop from the 1080p Low figure. This steep decline with resolution is characteristic of a GPU that is already near its limits at lower resolutions.

The pattern holds across all settings. At 1080p High, the system averages 56 FPS. At 1440p High, it drops to 36 FPS, a 36% reduction. At 4K High, it falls to 19 FPS, a 66% reduction from 1080p High. The Medium settings show a similar trend: 80 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset goes from 54 FPS at 1080p to 34 FPS at 1440p to 18 FPS at 4K.

These scaling patterns indicate that the limiting component is the GPU. The CPU, with its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 20 threads, would not bottleneck at these frame rates. The consistent 35-40% drop from 1080p to 1440p and the additional 45-50% drop from 1440p to 4K show that the GPU's fill rate and shader throughput cannot keep up with increasing pixel counts. The Arc B370's 20 ROPs and 6.144 TFLOPS are simply insufficient for high-resolution rendering. Even at 1080p, the system only achieves playable frame rates at Low settings, and the drop to 4K makes the game nearly unplayable at any setting.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the system shows its best performance. Low settings produce an average of 113 FPS, which is the only setting that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings drop to 80 FPS average, with minimums of 68 and maximums of 92 FPS. High settings average 56 FPS. Ultra settings average 54 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 33 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is minimal at 2 FPS.

At 2560x1440 resolution, performance drops significantly. Low settings average 71 FPS, still playable. Medium settings average 50 FPS, with minimums of 43 and maximums of 58 FPS. High settings average 36 FPS. Ultra settings average 34 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 21 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns on higher settings at this resolution.

At 3840x2160 resolution, the system struggles. Low settings average 37 FPS. Medium settings average 26 FPS, with minimums of 22 and maximums of 30 FPS. High settings average 19 FPS. Ultra settings average 18 FPS. None of these are playable for a smooth experience. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 1 FPS, showing that the GPU is completely saturated. The Medium preset at 4K has a 22 FPS minimum, which would result in noticeable stuttering.

The data shows that the Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum FPS values across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 68 FPS with a maximum of 92. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 43 FPS with a maximum of 58. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 22 FPS with a maximum of 30. These ranges indicate the variance a user might experience, with the 4K Medium preset showing a swing of 8 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for the best experience with this combination. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 113 FPS average, which is smooth and responsive. The Medium preset at 80 FPS average also provides good performance and likely offers better visual quality. Given that the minimum FPS for Medium at 1080p is 68, there is no risk of dropping below playable thresholds. The High and Ultra presets, at 56 and 54 FPS respectively, are borderline and may feel less smooth during demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 71 FPS is the only reliably smooth option. The Medium preset at 50 FPS is acceptable for slower-paced simulation gameplay, with a minimum of 43 FPS. The High and Ultra presets at 36 and 34 FPS are below the 60 FPS threshold and would not be recommended for a comfortable experience. Users at this resolution should stick to Low or Medium.

At 3840x2160, no setting provides acceptable performance. The Low preset at 37 FPS is the best option, but it still falls short of smooth gameplay. Medium at 26 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 18 FPS are all too slow for a playable experience. The recommendation for 4K would be to avoid it entirely with this GPU.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium. It provides an 80 FPS average with a minimum of 68 FPS, ensuring consistent frame delivery. The 33 FPS improvement over Low settings is significant, and the visual upgrade is worth the performance cost. For users who prioritize frame rate above all, 1080p Low at 113 FPS is the highest-performing option. The data strongly suggests that this combination is only viable at 1080p, with 1440p being a compromise and 4K being impractical.